A Forced Choice Performance Validity Test for the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the utility of a novel and easy-to-administer performance validity test (PVT), the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) Forced Choice recognition trial (RFC), compared with previously developed RBANS PVTs. METHOD: We compared the RFC with the RBANS Effort Index (EI) and Effort Scale (ES) in a sample of 62 non-litigating older adults (mean age = 74 years, 52% female) with varying levels of cognitive impairment. RESULTS: A significantly greater proportion of the sample met EI criteria for non-credible performance (EI > 2; 31%) compared with RFC criteria (RFC < 9; 15%). Among participants with Major Neurocognitive Disorder, 60% met EI criteria for non-credible performance, 32% met ES criteria (ES > 12), and 24% met RFC criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The RFC may have greater specificity than other RBANS PVTs among individuals with more severe cognitive impairment. Further research is needed to establish the classification accuracy of the RFC for assessing performance validity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".